Your words are smooth and well crafted. But you are not convincing the ice.

back a few years ago, the ice volume actually bumped a smidge higher one year and deniers took off with that big time... but as expected it was pretty much an anomaly. But wondering how many people were sucked in with that single upturn event buried in the decades of lower ice volumes?

ENIAC wrote:This is a fascinating examination as to "Why People Don't Believe In Climate Science".

It's only fascinating in the sense that people still trot out so many false statements (e.g. 97% consensus) and logical fallacies (e.g. stream of anecdotal evidence about hurricanes, etc). The idea that was floated that people do not "believe in climate science" because of peer pressure was particularly special, given that the speaker ignored the very obvious conclusion that many (most?) people that believe that CO2 is dangerous do it for the very same reason.

Climate science, like all science, currently has issues related to peer reviewers operating as gatekeepers, blocking outstanding articles from being published while sheer nonsense gets a free pass. Yet it is not fully dead, yet. As such I have been able to link to THOUSANDS of RECENT peer-reviewed climate science articles which directly contradict the ideas that today's climate is somehow "unprecedented" or more dangerous than in the past. In fact, the trends are that extreme events are getting less frequent as the world has warmed and food production continues its steady rise as CO2 fertilizes our atmosphere. Ice has melted back to where it was in the first half of the 20th century and no on has identified specific harms related to this melting.

I do believe that CO2 is not dangerous for the many reasons:

- I have studied this topic extensively. My belief that CO2 is not dangerous is based on this extensive research into the measured data on this topic.- Virtually every dire prediction that has been made by climate alarmists has been incorrect. The fact that climate alarmists have learned that making random predictions about dates that would occur within their lifetime was stupid and now only make predictions farther into the future does not change this fact.- As the world has warmed, it has rapidly greened and extreme weather events of all types have subsided. Food production continues its stead climb. In other words, gradual warming and increasing CO2 concentration is not a danger but rather they are a benefit. When I am told by someone that the climate alarmist that it is bad, I challenge them to tell me of one NEGATIVE effect of "climate change". Not a single one has been able to name something which the data do not clearly demonstrate is going in a BENEFICIAL direction. I've done that here for years.- The temperature of the *surface* of the oceans is the dominate factor which determines the temperature of the atmosphere.- The energy capacity of the Earth's oceans is about 2000 times the energy capacity of the Earth's atmosphere.- Cloud cover is, by far, the dominant factor which determines the temperature of the Earth. Clouds have a significantly-higher greenhouse effect than all of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. More importantly, they modulate the amount of sunlight which reaches the surface of the Earth. Therefore, they control the temperature of the global oceans.- A decrease in cloud cover of about 0.1% has the same heating effect of the entire increase in CO2 that has occurred since the 1800s.- Global cloud cover dropped about 3% coincident with the warming of the 1990s.- Cloud formation is an extremely-poorly understood phenomenon. It certainly is understood well-enough to be modeled. As such, the dominant factor which controls the temperature of the Earth CANNOT be modeled or predicted. There are so many factors which determine if clouds form or do not form that I expect it will be a very long time before it is possible to accurately predict their long-term behavior.- Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, having about 90% of the greenhouse effect on the Earth. (Some may say a bit less.)- CO2 is the second-most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, at about 5%. (Some may say a bit more.)- CO2 CANNOT heat the water of the Earth's oceans.- CO2 has a secondary or tertiary impact on the rate of loss of heat from the surface of the global oceans. Scientific measurements indirectly show that the current increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere has resulted in a reduction in the temperature drop seen at the surface of the ocean of LESS THAN 0.001K. By contrast, sunlight causes an INCREASE in the surface temperature of the oceans of about 2K.- In total, the temperature, and therefore the energy content, of the global oceans is not influenced by CO2 in any measurable fashion. Simply put, the temperature of the ocean is controlled by cloud cover and NOT by CO2. Any changes seen are a direct result of cloud cover.- Clouds are the well-known cause of the El-Nino Southern Oscillation.- Oh, and the side-show of ice melting in the Arctic and on glaciers is just that: a side show. Historical documents indicate that the ice levels seen today are extremely similar to what they were in second quarter of the 20th century. Good luck finding significant harms from this level of ice melt.- Finally, global average temperatures closely follow the temperature of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. As such, we should expect they will go down over the next few decades. There are quite a few new scientific papers which make this prediction.

I have provided the detailed, scientific documentation for all of these statements in these forums.

The bottom line is that these scientific facts clearly indicate that we should not focus one bit of effort trying to limit CO2 emissions with the intent of influencing the climate. Those proposing such action are clearly misinformed.

GRA wrote:The weird part as far as Norcal is that we had snow in the Lake Tahoe area just last Sunday, as well as high winds, some light rain, thunder and lightning, hail, a funnel cloud and below average temps in the Bay Area and Sacramento. While not unheard of, snow in June is extremely rare - even May is somewhat uncommon. Temps have been climbing steadily since then, and were in the normal range the past couple of days, but are forecast to break records in many places for the next week or so, with pretty much the entire Central Valley in triple digits a little early in the season.

And?

And nothing. A couple of hot spells every summer is pretty meaningless - they happen every year, although this one's a bit early, and quite a change in a short time. Example, the high a week ago Sunday in Livermore was 65; yesterday it was 106 there, and we're not forecast to see a drop below triple digits until Friday. Quite a few temp records were broken yesterday, some going back almost a century, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to draw any long-term conclusions about climate change from a single heat wave owing to an inland high - that's weather. Climate's a longer cycle.

O.K. then just call it what it is; Present CC theory is based on a similar historical data analysis of the stock market, i.e. it's a Random Walk! Assuming that one can obtain meaningful and predictive data from a random noise signalis overly optimistic at best.

WetEV wrote:A blanket can't warm you. It just keeps you from losing heat.

Get your money back for any blanket which only raises the temperature of the surface of your skin by 0.001K! That's what the scientific measurements indicate CO2 does. As I said, CO2 is a second-order or even a third-order effect. In other words, CO2 is a DON'T CARE when it comes to the temperature of the water in the Earth's oceans.

“What we’re experiencing is an assault on the very foundations of our society and democracy — the twin pillars of truth and trust,” Seidman responded. “What makes us Americans is that we signed up to have a relationship with ideals that are greater than us and with truths that we agreed were so self-evident they would be the foundation of our shared journey toward a more perfect union — and of respectful disagreement along the way. We also agreed that the source of legitimate authority to govern would come from ‘We the people.’”

But when there is no “we” anymore, because “we” no longer share basic truths, Seidman argued, “then there is no legitimate authority and no unifying basis for our continued association.”